In his article, Chiles said: ‘Carol was in full flow, talking about who’d win the Australian Open. “You also have to consider the frogs,” she said. “You know, that froggy golliwog guy.” “Ooh,” she added – waving an arm about. “If I was Prince Harry, I’d get shot for saying that.”

‘Before I’d worked out what to do, Jo – plainly aghast – leant across and said, “Excuse me, did you just say golliwog?” “Yes, well, he’s half-black,” Carol explained.’

Chiles wrote: ‘It was obvious that Jo was as appalled and embarrassed as I was but Carol didn’t seem to notice.

There is an obvious split between sections of the public as to what is acceptable in language: Or, should I say, a split in awareness of what is acceptable. One assumes Carol Thatcher always dismissed any advice as ‘PC Nonsense’. Yet she obviously recognizes that the use of ‘Paki’ will set up a media backlash. Maybe she is just dim beyond belief.

I love the claims that the BBC is stoking this fire. Adrian Chiles writes in the Sun – BBC must be behind it. Obviously, she believes her mother was successful in removing a free press form this country. It couldn’t be that people are actually interested in the story as a representation of where race relations are in this country.

People will read these stories if they are completely offended by what happened. They will also read it the believe it to be a huge furor over PC bollocks. Then there are the undecideds – Can I use the word? Am I Racist because I read Enid Blyton? Is this small black doll with the big thick lips really a disparraging racial stereotype based on the myth of happy little slaves?

However the death threats are a little too far. This is a wider issue than one person using words without knowing the meaning. If you threaten Carol Thatcher, you also need to threaten all Daily Mail, Telegraph, Sun and Star readers. It is a problem with society, and this is just an example.

“The golliwog,” concludes Pilgrim, “was created during a racist era. He was drawn as a caricature of a minstrel, itself a demeaning image of blacks. There is racial stereotyping of black people in Upton’s original books, and certainly later golliwogs often reflected negative beliefs about black people – thieves, miscreants, incompetents. Finally, there is little doubt that the words associated with golliwog – golli, wog, and golliwog itself – are often used as racial slurs.”

The BBC is to join forces with ITV to produce a set-top box that will allow television viewers to watch programmes on demand.

Until now, the BBC’s successful iPlayer has only allowed consumers to watch programmes on their computers. But under the new scheme there is the potential for films, shows and interactive content from a range of other providers to be made available in standard and high definition – on television.

There are also implications about the future funding of Channel 4 tied up in this. Will they lose their PSB remit?

And the Plot Thickens. So far, we basically have the idea that two presenters phoned an answering machine and left lewd messages, and it was broadcast uncut and without the say so of the subjects. Brand, because of his relationship with the head of Radio2 was able to bully producers into doing his bidding. Both Presenters wanted to broadcast it.

But, did they actually record the messages on the answering machine? Did Andrew Sachs actually give permission? We have several top people at Radio 2 Resigning, so should the presenters still be punished? Was it the producers job? And where was the compliance paperwork?

Brand says: ‘The grey area is that our brilliant young producer, Nic Philps, called Andrew Sachs afterwards and said, “Is it OK? Can we use it? Do you mind?” And he said, “Oh yeah, but can you tone it down a bit?” So we did. We took out the more personal stuff.’

Some radio sources have suggested that not all of the series of offensive messages, aired on Brand’s show, were left on Sachs’s answering machine, but were recorded separately. The BBC said it could not confirm or deny this claim.

Specifically, the [Independent on Sunday] has learned, Ross warned producers that the now infamous lewd phone call should not be broadcast. Friends of the entertainer say he realised within minutes that the call had gone too far. According to these friends, Ross told Radio 2 producers: “I expect you’ll be editing all that out”, to which the reply was: “Some of it’s funny.” Ross then said the producers should check if Andrew Sachs was happy with the edit before broadcast.

Sachs himself has confirmed that he was phoned by somebody at the BBC who asked if the messages left on his voicemail could be broadcast. Although he did object, someone at the BBC overruled his and Ross’s concerns and went ahead.

“It is not Ross’s fault,” a friend said. “There is a golden rule across the industry that producers are supposed to protect talent, especially guests on other people’s shows who might get roped into something. If you are a producer, then it’s your responsibility.

“If it’s a live show, you have talkback from your producer, so if you do anything wrong you can be told to apologise. If it’s a pre-recorded show, then it’s up to the producer. Guests are not responsible. Ross’s treatment has been grossly unfair. Whether what they said was right or wrong, it need never have gone to a wider audience. It could have stayed between the people in the studio and Andrew Sachs.”

The show’s success means it only pays out as a last resort – its market-leading position means big American stars contractually obliged to publicise the films they star in tend to appear as a matter of routine when they are in London on the European leg of their promotional tour.

But the explosion of entertainment programmes that rely on high-profile guests to deliver big ratings has created a market in celebrity appearances, as they vie to attract the biggest names in an intensely competitive field.